The role of Clerics and Paladins in medieval europe

[Thorntangle]

Not all priests and knights were poor, however. Indeed, many were in privileged positions of power and prosperity. However, they did not "evoke great reverance and awe" nor did they "wield enormous power and influence in almost all levels of society" as the starter of this thread stated. Certainly, the mere appearance of any priest or knight on the streets did not "cause massive crowds to form and gather for a glimpse or a touch".

You have taken my statements out of context, specifically hypothetical propositions. Here is the quote:

In my opinion, a cleric or paladin, being the living representation of a deity to the average medieval european, would evoke great reverance and awe. They would wield enormous power and influence in almost all levels of society.

I didn't claim this of clergy and knights from our history, but rather clerics and paladins in D&D. The words reverance, awe, power and influence would generally apply in the case of a high level cleric or paladin in their society, don't you think?

I can understand where you are coming from in regards to downplaying the role of clergy and knights in european history. And you certainly came up with some good counter-examples with some excellent verisimilitude/plot potential. But I also think you are over-representing the exception.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Yes, I understand that you weren't saying that this was the actual history. But what I'm trying to point out to you is that this was, in some instances, far from the case. If you want a more "realistic" game, then you'll have to take a wider and more diverse perspective on the issue of priests and knights in the middle ages. So, because not all priests and knights were powerful, prosperous, or revered as you described, you can't portray them as such if you want a game with verisimilitude.

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by Sir Edgar
I'd, in turn, recommend reading books besides those suggested by one RPG writer you happen to like. The Gies books are not the "bible" of Medieval Times. I own nearly all of them and I have to say they're quite good introductory books, but relying on any single source can be dangerous. Try going to the library and reading through the books there to get a more diverse viewpoint.

Out of the 60 or so medieval history books i own about europe, five of them are from the gies: city, town, women, marriage, forge and waterwheel. They are very good introductions and provide a good viewpoint.

also, i don't like being a straw man. I didn't say they were the "bible", i didn't read them because of a RPG writer's suggestion, i don't rely on any single source, and i have been to my library to look at medieval history books.

Not all priests and knights were poor, however.

I agree, but unfortunatly what you posted was,

"Many priests and knights during the Middle Ages had to beg for food from the villagers. They were often viewed as parasites and frequently spat on when they came panhandling for alms and such. Most of them wore rags for clothing and starved during the winter months. Some, on the other hand, lived quite well and ate enormous amounts of food and drank heartily. But this was because they were successful gardeners, farmers, or hunters not because the villagers donated such things."

you were asserting that that was the norm. its wasn't. you may have regional differences, notably in times of famine, but what you describe is most definitly not the norm. Throughout the medieval period as a whole, knights and priests generally had favorable living conditions when compared with the peasants, craftsmen, and merchants. And its wasn't just because they were good gardeners.

Indeed, many were in privileged positions of power and prosperity. However, they did not "evoke great reverance and awe" nor did they "wield enormous power and influence in almost all levels of society" as the starter of this thread stated. Certainly, the mere appearance of any priest or knight on the streets did not "cause massive crowds to form and gather for a glimpse or a touch".

yep, the original poster used loaded language and did not adaquately discribe reality. but your use of loaded language to try and counter his use, isn't terribly accurate either.

By the way, land ownership is not necessarily a prerequisite for knighthood. Often people were knighted on the battlefield for heroic acts (or being among the few to have survived) without consideration of whether they owned land or not.

Every knight owned land (here speaking of england, france and germany... im not so sure about other countries). Unless they were considered bachelor knights or misterales (unfree) german knights. I'm sure there are individual exceptions. the medieaval period is nothing if not full of exceptions.

When a man was knighted he was given land. If he was not given land he would be given food, equipment, shelter for himself and his horse at his lords court. Not everyone received the same benefits, but in general a knight that was not given land was given enough maintenace to support himself in his feudal duties.

One thing I do have to point out is that my comment was focused on priests. However, knights were also not as glamorous as we often conceive either as pointed out. I may have also exaggerated when I said "most of them wore rags", etc. Most did not, but many did.

Yes, priests had a harder time of it than knights. I've read the year 1000 book (its written by a non-medievalist and a journalist, not that it makes the book any less solid... it was a good read), and sold it back to my local 1/2 price store, but if i remember properly he was speaking of the rural priest, the priest to the villiage or manor, not any priest that had an amount of land with which he could adaquately support himself.

Here i have to wonder if you're speaking about the younger sons of knights as if they were knights. if you are, your statements are more correct, as they were often poor, hence they went to tourneys and formed a large section of armies as mercenaries to earn money and to hopefully be knighted for their performance so they could get land or get supported by a more wealthy lord. these people, however are not knights. Knighthood is relationship of vassalage involving obligation and maintenance.

I imagine we agree on many of these things, but its important to not use inaccurate, hyperbolic language when discussing history. That doesn't inform anyone of anything and often hampers your stance.

If anything i've said here seems wrong, let me know. I'm always willing to find out more. Well gotta get back to writing "A magical medieval society: western europe."

joe b.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Out of the 60 or so medieval history books i own about europe, five of them are from the gies: city, town, women, marriage, forge and waterwheel. They are very good introductions and provide a good viewpoint.

also, i don't like being a straw man. I didn't say they were the "bible", i didn't read them because of a RPG writer's suggestion, i don't rely on any single source, and i have been to my library to look at medieval history books.

I'm getting the impression that you're the type of person who likes to brag and put down others to feel better about yourself.

It shows poor form when when you post statements like this:

"In fact the majority of your post that i quoted above is incorrect enough that i'd recomend picking up a good introductary book, like "life in a medieval villiage" or "life in a medieval town" by francis and joseph gies.

If your just "flumphing," please "flumph" along..."

I agree, but unfortunatly what you posted was,

"Many priests and knights during the Middle Ages had to beg for food from the villagers. They were often viewed as parasites and frequently spat on when they came panhandling for alms and such. Most of them wore rags for clothing and starved during the winter months. Some, on the other hand, lived quite well and ate enormous amounts of food and drank heartily. But this was because they were successful gardeners, farmers, or hunters not because the villagers donated such things."

you were asserting that that was the norm. its wasn't. you may have regional differences, notably in times of famine, but what you describe is most definitly not the norm. Throughout the medieval period as a whole, knights and priests generally had favorable living conditions when compared with the peasants, craftsmen, and merchants. And its wasn't just because they were good gardeners.

If you look at the exact wording of the paragraph that you quoted me on, it is all accurate except I would have changed in "Most of them wore rags..." from "most" to "many".

yep, the original poster used loaded language and did not adaquately discribe reality. but your use of loaded language to try and counter his use, isn't terribly accurate either.

And I assume you think you are the only person who is accurate around here?

Every knight owned land (here speaking of england, france and germany... im not so sure about other countries). Unless they were considered bachelor knights or misterales (unfree) german knights. I'm sure there are individual exceptions. the medieaval period is nothing if not full of exceptions.

When a man was knighted he was given land. If he was not given land he would be given food, equipment, shelter for himself and his horse at his lords court. Not everyone received the same benefits, but in general a knight that was not given land was given enough maintenace to support himself in his feudal duties.

By your own statement, you have contradicted yourself. As far as I know a bachelor knight is a knight, too. If he doesn't owned land, then he is a landless knight. Knights without land or war had no means of income. Desperate times call for desperate measures, especially among corrupt soldiers in armor.

Anyhow, I am confident that not "every knight owned land" in Medieval Europe. You are saying 100% did indeed own land, but this is not possible. I would even go as far to say the majority did NOT. In fact, some knights robbed peasants or collected "taxes" in the form of food and women a la mafia style.

There was a such a surplus of knights that many took off to the Crusades in the hope of acquiring land. Do you think that if all of these knights had land they'd leave it for land in some unknown part of the world?

Yes, priests had a harder time of it than knights. I've read the year 1000 book (its written by a non-medievalist and a journalist, not that it makes the book any less solid... it was a good read), and sold it back to my local 1/2 price store,

Right, because it wasn't good enough for your personal library collection of "60 or so medieval history books"...

but if i remember properly he was speaking of the rural priest, the priest to the villiage or manor, not any priest that had an amount of land with which he could adaquately support himself.

Oh, so now we're differentiating between the "rural" priest and the priest that "had an amount of land with which he could adquately support himself"?

By definition a priest that "had an amount of landed with which he could adequately support himself" would not have a problem feeding himself, don't you think???

Here i have to wonder if you're speaking about the younger sons of knights as if they were knights. if you are, your statements are more correct, as they were often poor, hence they went to tourneys and formed a large section of armies as mercenaries to earn money and to hopefully be knighted for their performance so they could get land or get supported by a more wealthy lord. these people, however are not knights. Knighthood is relationship of vassalage involving obligation and maintenance.

I imagine we agree on many of these things, but its important to not use inaccurate, hyperbolic language when discussing history. That doesn't inform anyone of anything and often hampers your stance.

If anything i've said here seems wrong, let me know. I'm always willing to find out more. Well gotta get back to writing "A magical medieval society: western europe."

joe b.

Knighthood was not usually hereditary, so no that is not what I am referring to. Anyhow, it seems like now you are making clearer precise definitions rather than just accusing people of "flumphing", so I thank you for showing some more respect to your fellow posters. I would, however, recommend that you yourself be careful not to use "inaccurate, hyperbolic language" when discussing history. You seem to have difficulty making even a logical argument, in my opinion (see "Every knight owned land..." and "rural priest" vs. landed priest.)

 

[Thorntangle]

Gentlemen, to your corners. This isn't about who has the biggest... library

Sir Edgar - thanks for throwing in a dissenting voice to mix it up a little bit. It's valuable input. But take it easy on the personal side.

We're all just amateurs here flexing our grey matter a little playing the classic "What if?" game with history.

I think it's well established that knights weren't always respected, powerful, chivalrous. And not all clergy were cloistered and living off tithes or the donations of willing parishioners. Which is good because these little details add up to verisimilitude. If everything were the always the same, life/game would be predictable and dull. A few logical, counterintuitive details (used judiciously) will really add interest and realism. Since, after all, life is more complex than can ever be portrayed in a fantasy game.

 

[jgbrowning]

Post deleted to respect thorntangles wishes. To briefly say what i think.

I'm right, your wrong. nanny nanny boo boo.
i mean that with all respect...

and

Try to be nicer. Post what you think about the subject, not what you think about me.

Here's two good books, that discuss feudalism. Feudalism, FL Ganshof. Medieval Feudalism, Stephenson.

Hopefully, in 6 months or so, you can pick up my book, A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe. Then flame on me for how stupid i am..

joe b.

 

[Sir Edgar]

No. I don't brag, nor do i put down others to feel better. I do respond to tell people that they're historically inaccurate. If that seems to you to be 'putting people down' that's your business.

Yep, you insist on being "accurate" while others are "inaccurate."

My apologies if informing a poster who posted an entire paragraph of incorrect statements where he could go to find better information. My apologies if an simple introductary book about the subject would suffice to inform the poster.

I don't accept apologies from people who don't mean it.

Anyhow, the fact that you refer to a single book to explain something is why I suggested that you seem to rely on a mono-perspective viewpoint.

How about instead of attempting to shift blame to me, we adress the inacuracies of your initial post? given that situation my response to your post is appropriate.

Please calm down-- your spelling and grammar get worse and worse as you get angrier.

The reason why i said you might want to flumph along is because your post was so inacurate that i, honestly, thought you might have been a troll. i only tell that to trolls, or to people who i think are trolling.

Thanks for your kind consideration of me as a "troll". Again, I am "inaccurate" and you are "accurate". Black and white thought process is revealing itself here in an obvious pattern.

No, not many. Some did, but they do not, IMHO, constitute a "many".... "many" being less than 50% (>50%=most) and "some" being around maybe 10% or so. this is my personal reading of this, but probably not too personal. logically "some" means only "being at least one".. but i dont think logic definitions are really appropriate.

Yes, and of course, your opinion (being the only "accurate" one out there) is law. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, however, "many" does not mean between 10% and 50% as you say, but "numerous" or "a large number". Interpret this as you wish, it means more than a few. Whether it's a 10,000 out of 1,000,000 doesn't matter. Ten thousand, while only effectively 1%, is a lot of people. Many people.

Would you say that just because they comprise less than 0.001% of the population, the 3,000 people who were killed in the WTC attack was not many? That seems like "many" tragic deaths to me.

Regardless, someone who doesn't think "logic(al) definitions are really appropriate" wouldn't care about being ACCURATE.

"2.They were often viewed as parasites and frequently spat on when they came panhandling for alms and such."

No. Some may have been viewed as parasites. Again often implies that it was a common occurance, and that was not the case. Here i assumed you were mostly talking about mendicants, but you said priest which is a wider group. Even mendicants weren't frequently spat on... how can you possibly think that this is accurate? What are your sources?

I gave you my general reading sources and even posted a link that specifically used the word "parasite" to describe priests in the Middle Ages.

Um. no. they lived quite well and ate enormous amounts of food because they were friggen feudal lords.... not because the were good gardeners, they probably employed good gardeners

There's no need for cursing or foul language...

ah, love the feel of flame... hyperbole again? i'm always interested in people who post something like this while in the same post they put "so I thank you for showing some more respect to your fellow posters."

I was just trying to be a little polite where I can. But that's hard to do with you.

this is not a logical arguement. the crusades were not solely a cause and effect relationship concerning landownership. also you seem to imply that a person would not want to gain more land via a crusade that he could gain back at home with your statement, which is also untrue. there were crusaders who left land behind at home to hopefully gain more.[/B]

I'm sorry but I don't remember stating that the Crusades were caused by land ownership issues in Europe. I simply stated that many knights left for the Holy Land because they had hopes for acquiring land there. Land which they most likely did not have back home.

Why would the knights who went on the Crusades want to "gain more" land in the Holy Land if they had land back in Europe? Do you think an individual in Middle Ages could manage their property on two different continents by Internet or something? It took months to get to the Holy Land. Many died on the way there due to thirst, starvation, backstabbing, or attacks by the locals.

No, i sold it because i sold all my stuff when i went to india. the house, the car, all the books..

I'm sorry that it seems as if i tried to say "nanana boo boo! i have sooo many more books than you, that my opinion is better than yours.." The only reason why i mentioned having so many books is because you said i needed to have more than "one" source. Just letting you know i do.[/B]

Saying a book was good but "written , but that you sold it to your half-price bookstore suggesting it was possibly because it was "written by a non-medievalist and a journalist", sounds a bit snobbish to me.

yep. but, the priests that didn't have enough land to support themselves were a rarity. most churches, even rural churches had enough to support themselves.[/B]

I never said anything to the contrary.

also, when i said he (the author of 1000 ad) was referring to the rural priest, i said that to inform the readers that 1000 ad's priest was only the poor rural priest, not priests in general so they wouldn't get the idea that "Most of them [priests] wore rags for clothing and starved during the winter months", which is what your post said, before you asked most to be edited to many. my apologies if my response was unclear.[/B]

If you read carefully, you will see that I meant most of the priests WHO begged for food "wore rags for clothing and starved during the winter months". But I can see how you could misinterpret that, so I rephrased the sentence.

Well hopefully the next time someone points out your inaccuracies you wont respond with a flurry of straw man assumptions. You made 5!, assumption/insults to me in your initial response and now you thank me for showing you respect?[/B]

My statements were not inaccurate. You seemed to have made the first assumption about me: basically, that I don't know what I'm talking about, so why don't I read this good introductory book...

jgbrowning said:
"In fact the majority of your post that i quoted above is incorrect enough that i'd recomend picking up a good introductary book, like "life in a medieval villiage" or "life in a medieval town" by francis and joseph gies.

If your just "flumphing," please "flumph" along..."

You also suggested that I was a troll, but I'm beginning to think that you are. All I did was state a different opinion from what was posted by others and I got flamed by you. Isn't that what happened?

It was rare that a church was started that did not have enough land to support itself through farming and tithing. I should have made it clearer that almost any amount of land would support a single priest, considering a single acre or two would support one priest as the church often recieved tax exemptions.

joe b. [/B]

Not always. Some priests struggled and many had to beg for food from peasants who weren't doing any better. (There's your favorite word again... many.) That's why sometimes they'd spit on them and chase them out of the village.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Post deleted to respect thorntangles wishes. To briefly say what i think.

I'm right, your wrong. nanny nanny boo boo.
i mean that with all respect...

and

Try to be nicer. Post what you think about the subject, not what you think about me.

Here's two good books, that discuss feudalism. Feudalism, FL Ganshof. Medieval Feudalism, Stephenson.

Hopefully, in 6 months or so, you can pick up my book, A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe. Then flame on me for how stupid i am..

joe b.

Ah, so this person thinks that what you posted shouldn't be up there. Why? Do you regret anything you had said?

Well, I think it would be better to show others how you respond to posts with foul language and illogical arguments.

Good luck on your book!

 

[jgbrowning]

Well

perhaps i deleted my post because i thought it was pointless to argue. though given your response, i thank you for undeleting my post.

joe b.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Re: Well

perhaps i deleted my post because i thought it was pointless to argue. though given your response, i thank you for undeleting my post.

joe b.

I don't have a problem with anything I've posted here except again I'd change "most" to "many".

Anyhow, there were "many" priests and knights who struggled during the Middle Ages ("some" even begging for or demanding food from equally impoverished peasants who did not this parasitic behavior kindly).